[This article is a response to the first article in a four-part debate for Public Square on Mormonism. You should probably read that article before continuing here]
Since its publication, the questions surrounding the historical authenticity or historicity of the Book of Mormon (BoM) have been much discussed, analyzed, and debated. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has maintained that the book contains an abridged, written history of three groups of people who left the old world and came to the Americas. Church leadership has never withdrawn from this position.Richard Packham has outlined a generalized history of the BoM, having only a few small errors that will not be addressed here for brevity. For clarification, the purpose for the ancient history is to testify of Jesus Christ and to preserve the ancient prophecies recording their history so that their descendants might come to a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Are There Evidences That Support Its Historicity?
Packham asks if there are reasons to doubt the historicity of the BoM and then provides what he understands to be supporting evidence for his views. Conversely, are there any evidences that could be understood as supportive of the claims of the BoM as a historical account? It would seem logical that a search for evidence be conducted only after a location for the search has been identified. What chance is there of finding evidence of anything, if one is looking for it in the wrong place? There are 36 ancient prophecies and promises pertaining to the “Promised Land” and the “Gentiles” who would occupy that land in the future. These prophecies actually define the BoM’s Promised Land, making it quite clear where the BoM must have taken place, and thereby providing a suitable location to begin a search for collaborating or contradicting evidence. From this foundation, a location in which to begin our search for the physical and geographical evidences can be determined. That location, which has been quietly gaining momentum within the membership of the Church, involves a newly proposed BoM geography within what is known as the “Heartland” of North America within the confines of what is now the United States of America.Packham asserts that nothing has been “discovered by history, archaeology, anthropology, zoology, linguistics, or any other branch of science that resembles anything described in the Book of Mormon. Nothing.” Let us examine these assertions as outlined and augment some others to gain more perspective.
To begin, is there any evidence for a highly advanced civilization, as indicated in the BoM, that had a written language, used metals, built cities with connecting roads, and were agrarian? Did such a civilization exist anywhere within the prophesied confines of the land now occupied by the United States during the time period specified in the BoM?
A small group such as Lehi’s landing party would leave precious little if any signature of their arrival until their numbers began to have an impact on the land sufficient to be detected by modern archaeological methods. However, an ancient civilization now known as the Mound Builders or the Hopewell civilization flourished beginning around 300 B.C. and abruptly ended between A.D. 400 and 500. This falls squarely within the timeframes of the Nephite civilization of the BoM, which began with a small group arriving near 600 B.C. and ending with a war of extermination around A.D. 420. The Hopewell civilization occupied roughly what is now the heartland of America, spanning from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes and Canada and from the Appalachians to the Great Plains. The highest concentrations of the remains of their civilization have been found archaeologically in the broad Mississippi and Ohio River valleys.
Are there any potential correlations between the Nephite civilization described in the BoM and the ancient Hopewell civilization of America’s heartland? Let us examine the evidence.
Much of what is now known about the Hopewell Mound Builders has been gained in recent years as better techniques and methods of archeological and anthropological science have helped to gain further understanding. There is a plethora of incorrect notions surrounding this mysterious civilization that are only now becoming understood. Some sources of information available are woefully outdated and indeed erroneous when compared to more recent and robust archaeological, anthropological, zoological, linguistic, and genetic findings.
Smith’s Unique Religious Beliefs
What were the religious ideas of that time? What were the theories of Native American origins? What could Joseph Smith have known of the ancient history of the Americas?The following are religious beliefs that were not being preached by religions of his day but were unique to Smith:
• That little children had no need for baptism
• That God and his Son are separate beings having physical bodies
• That the Lord would speak again to his children
• That there is a need for modern prophets
• That there would be more scripture
• That temple ordinances were necessary for salvation
• That baptism should be made available for those who had already died
• That the original church had ended, because there was an apostasy
• That there must be a restoration of the original gospel of Jesus Christ
• That all the other distinctly Mormon doctrines made it unique within ChristianityIt would appear that Packham’s argument is flawed because none of these beliefs reflected the “religious ideas of that time.”
Smith and the Indians
Smith also held unique views about the status and origins of the American Indians that the overwhelming majority of Americans did not share.Smith taught that:
• Indians were of Jewish ancestry.
• Indians were descended from a once a highly advanced civilization.
• Indians were as capable and as “evolved” as Europeans.
• Indians were to be respected as equals and were not merely “ignorant savages.”
• Indians were civilized enough to be allowed to vote in elections and were capable of holding public office.
• Indian ancestors came from the Holy Land to the Americas by ship.
• Ancient Indians had large cities with roads, complex trading networks, an understanding of metals, a written Hebrew language and had massive wars of extermination.How well do Smith’s words and actions reflect these “religious ideas of that time”? The simple fact is that they don’t. Smith taught on numerous occasions that the Indians were the chosen people of the Lord, who had come to the Americas as indicated by the BoM text he translated.
How Smith could have come up with what he did, based on the theories of the time about Indian origins, is a substantial refutation of Packham’s assertion. Americans at the time thought that the Indians had always been savages and had never attained the status of “civilization,” yet Smith stated otherwise—his work with the BoM so indicated. Packham’s assertion is without basis in early American history.
The Role of Faith
As one who believes the BoM to be a historically accurate account of the early inhabitants of this continent, I also believe that evidence supporting this view does exist and may be found. My knowledge of the truthfulness of the BoM is founded primarily not on physical evidence but through spiritual witness. If absolute proof were always a prerequisite for belief, what then of the role of faith? Such a demand would leave little if anything as a basis for faith.It is important to show at least the propensity of evidence of the truthfulness of something in order to assist in initiating belief, but no level of evidence will ever be sufficient to overcome the determined will of one who refuses to accept the facts. No matter how well-founded a belief is, there will be those who will argue against it, claiming that lack of physical evidence amounts to “holes” or “fatal flaws” in the argument. The problem too often becomes one of interpretation of the facts. For some, nothing short of religious conversion would convince them of the truth. For others, acceptance of the facts that are known, in combination with faith that additional supporting facts may be forthcoming, form a strong basis of belief.
Packham’s Razor
Packham’s use of Ockham’s razor is interesting, as Father William of Ockham, a Franciscan friar, was a religious man, and Packham apparently endorses his philosophy yet rejects Joseph Smith’s philosophical arguments because he was religious. In theory, Ockham’s razor has application, but it does not ever establish the truth but only the simplest approximation of it. Often the “simple” answer is actually the wrong one. Life, ideas, systems, nature, etc., each have complex interactions that often make the “simple” answer not so simple—and untrue.Even so, let’s apply Ockham’s razor to the question of the BoM’s historicity. Which of these two explanations is the most likely?
1. The BoM was a fictional work by Joseph Smith because of the following:
a) It was created as a sham for the purpose of gaining fame and fortune, neither of which was attained during Smith’s lifetime.
b) Smith conjured up the story, speculating about all sorts of things that were unknown at the time but could be proven or disproven years in the future yet has now, in the vast majority of instances, been verified through archaeology to have been accurate.
c) Smith wrote a 530-page complex fiction novel spanning 1,000 years of unknown ancient American history, writing from the viewpoints of several different authors, inserting Hebrew language patterns unknown at the time, and accomplishing this monumental feat having had only three years of formal education, having never written so much as an article or simple book previously, and doing it in an inordinately brief period of time.
d) Smith conned several reputable men and women to testify in writing that they actually saw and held the ancient metal plates from which he claimed to have translated the book, yet none of these people ever denied their testimonies even though several became his bitter enemies.
e) Smith was an incredibly lucky speculator and manipulator of otherwise decent, educated, and highly respectable people, even though the vast majority of these speculations have now been demonstrated to have been astonishingly accurate and true and many millions of decent, educated, and highly respectable people continue to honor him to this day.2. The BoM is an ancient historical record translated by Joseph Smith because of the following:
a) Smith received neither widespread fame nor fortune in his life, which are primary motivators of con artists and charlatans, as a result of his claims.
b) Smith suffered merciless attacks on his character and person, bringing him hardship and difficulty throughout his life, yet he never abandoned his claims.
c) Smith’s refusal to deny his claims caused him to be driven from several homes, removed forcibly from his beloved wife and young children, falsely imprisoned, beaten, relentlessly persecuted, and finally executed by a lawless mob—yet he never denied his claims.
d) Smith learned of things unknown at his time through interaction with the BoM, angels, and the Lord, which helps to explain why so many of his claims have now been verified as true.
e) Smith could not have written the BoM on his own because he lacked the necessary education, experience, knowledge, and time that would have been required without intervention from the Lord.
f) Not one of the reputable men and women who signed sworn written testimonies of having handled the ancient record ever denied them, even though some became Smith’s bitter enemies.
g) As Smith himself put it, “I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God and come under condemnation.” Smith refused to deny his words because he reverenced and respected God more than his own life.I, as well, leave it to the readers to decide.
© 2010 Rod L. Meldrum
For the response (Part 3 of the debate) to this article, by Richard Packham, click here.
To search this website or the web: